New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Town Law § 263 (2026)

Purposes in view

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 263. Purposes in view. Such regulations shall be made in accordance
with a comprehensive plan and designed to lessen congestion in the
streets; to secure safety from fire, flood, panic and other dangers; to
promote health and general welfare; to provide adequate light and air;
to prevent the overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of
population; to make provision for, so far as conditions may permit, the
accommodation of solar thermal, photovoltaics, wind, hydroelectric,
geothermal electric, geothermal ground source heat, tidal energy, wave
energy, ocean thermal, farm waste electric generating equipment as
defined in paragraph (e) of subdivision one of section sixty-six-j of
the public service law, and fuel cells; to facilitate the practice of
forestry; to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water,
sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements. Such regulations
shall be made with reasonable consideration, among other things, as to
the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for
particular uses, and with a view to conserving the value of buildings
and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout such
municipality.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 43 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2021 · leading case: Gernatt Asphalt Prods., Inc. v. Town of Sardinia, 664 N.E.2d 1226 (NY 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gernatt Asphalt Prods., Inc. v. Town of Sardinia, 664 N.E.2d 1226 (NY 1996). “Nor do we agree that the Town’s action was invalid because it failed to meet the statutory requirement that municipal zoning must accord with a comprehensive plan (see, Udell v Haas, 21 NY2d 463 ; Town Law § 263; Village Law § 7-704; see also, General City Law § 20 [25]).”

Horn v. Int'l Bus. Machines Corp., 110 A.D.2d 87 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985). · cites it 2× “Town Law § 263 mandates that zoning regulations be enacted in accordance with the community’s comprehensive plan.”

Matter of Youngewirth v. Town of Ramapo Town Bd., 2017 NY Slip Op 7744 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). “for Equality v Koch, 72 NY2d 121, 131 [1988]; see Town Law § 263; Matter of Birchwood Neighborhood Assn.”

Asian Americans for Equality v. Koch, 527 N.E.2d 265 (NY 1988). “*131 The power to zone is derived from the Legislature and must be exercised in the case of towns and villages in accord with a "comprehensive plan” (see, Town Law § 263; Village Law § 7-704) or in the case of cities in accord with a "well considered plan” (General City Law § 20…”

Dodson v. Town Bd. of the Town of Rotterdam, 2020 NY Slip Op 1234 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020). “"Fundamentally, and relevant here, if a zoning amendment is consistent with the municipality's comprehensive plan, it is not spot zoning" ( Matter of Heights of Lansing, LLC v Village of Lansing , 160 AD3d at 1168 [citations omitted]; see generally Town Law § 263). The Town's…”

Town of Southold v. Town of East Hampton, 406 F. Supp. 2d 227 (E.D.N.Y 2005). · cites it 2× “Defendant moves for summary judgment on the ground that this law, along with Town Law § 263, which authorizes laws “designed to lessen congestion in the streets,” N.Y. Town Law § 263 , provides it with the statutory authority to adopt the Ferry Law.”

St. Onge v. Donovan, 522 N.E.2d 1019 (NY 1988). “Indeed, it is for this reason that zoning decisions must be made "in accordance with a comprehensive plan”, rather than in response to "the whims of either an articulate minority or even majority of the community” (Town Law § 263; Udell v Haas, 21 NY2d, at 469 , supra).”

Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Town of East Hampton, 997 F. Supp. 340 (E.D.N.Y 1998). · cites it 2× “2d 897 (1968); N.Y. Town Law § 263 . The rationale behind requiring zoning changes to accord with a comprehensive plan is to prevent ad hoe zoning legislation that affects the land of a few without proper regard to the needs or design of the community as a whole.”

Rocky Point Drive-In, L.P. v. Town of Brookhaven, 999 N.E.2d 1164 (NY 2013). “Zoning laws must be enacted in accordance with a comprehensive land use plan (see Town Law § 263; Asian Ams. for Equality v Koch, 72 NY2d 121, 131 [1988]).”

McGrath v. Town Bd. of Town of North Greenbush, 254 A.D.2d 614 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). “Notably, Moore does not address the issue of whether the zoning amendment is inconsistent with the Zoning Law.”

Sunrise Check Cashing & Payroll Servs., Inc. v. Town of Hempstead, 986 N.E.2d 898 (NY 2013). “Law § 261, which authorizes town boards “to regulate and restrict the height, number of stories and size of buildings and other structures, the percentage of lot that may be occupied, the size of yards, courts, and other open spaces, the density of population, and the location…”

Citizens Against Retail Sprawl v. Giza, 280 A.D.2d 234 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). “Petitioners asserted that the Town did not prepare a final EIS and thus respondents failed to comply with the requirements of SEQRA; respondents failed to comply with the requirements of the Town Zoning Ordinance because a development plan was not submitted with the application…”

Show all 43 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.